1. bookVolume 21 (2018): Issue 2 (December 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

A Comparison of Social Learning Systems: Crochet Alongs and Moocs

Published Online: 02 Mar 2019
Volume & Issue: Volume 21 (2018) - Issue 2 (December 2018)
Page range: 14 - 26
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1027-5207
First Published
11 Dec 2014
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

Essentially social learning is a system where the learning occurs with and from others. Internet-based technologies have provided environments within which social learning can take place among very large groups covering various topics, ranging from academic to leisure.

In general MOOCs are academic-related courses offered by educational institutions, following a model of formal education, however they also take advantage of the concept of social learning, encouraging participants to learn together and from each other.

Crochet Alongs (CALs) are non-formal courses offered outside educational institutions. CALs give crocheters the opportunity to learn more about their craft within an Internet-based social learning system, while working independently on their own instantiation of a pattern released at intervals. Participants offer support to each other via social media, sometimes seeking help in overcoming problems and other times just to share success.

There is a considerable body of research into the MOOC phenomena, there is no such body of research into CALs, or other Internet-based craft courses. There are a number of similarities between MOOCs and CALs with some CALs attracting thousands of participants to freely available online courses. Contrasting MOOCs and CALs offers educationalists to explore alternatives approaches to social learning.

1. Bingham, T., & Conner, M. (2015). The New Social Learning: A Guide to Transforming Organizations Through Social Media. Berrett-Koehler Publishers & ASTD Press.Search in Google Scholar

2. Bozkurt, A., Keskin, N. O., & de Waard, I. (2016). Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis, 8(3), 203-221.10.5944/openpraxis.8.3.287Search in Google Scholar

3. CEDEFOP. (2011). Glossary: Quality in Education and Training.Search in Google Scholar

4. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 87-104.10.19173/irrodl.v13i1.1027Search in Google Scholar

5. Clark, D. (2013, April 16). MOOCs: taxonomy of 8 types of MOOC. Donald Clark Plan B [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/moocs-taxonomy-of-8-types-of-mooc.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

6. Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65-77.Search in Google Scholar

7. Conole, G. (2015). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 39.Search in Google Scholar

8. Cormier, D. (2008, October 2). The CCK08 MOOC–Connectivism Course, 1/4 Way. Dave’s Educational Blog [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/2008/10/02/the-cck08-mooc-connectivism-course-14-way/Search in Google Scholar

9. Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2012(3).10.5334/2012-18Search in Google Scholar

10. Dickie, V. A. (2003). The role of learning in quilt making. Journal of Occupational Science, 10(3), 120-129.10.1080/14427591.2003.9686519Search in Google Scholar

11. Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1), 6.Search in Google Scholar

12. Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: a review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345.10.1080/17439884.2013.878352Search in Google Scholar

13. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273-290.Search in Google Scholar

14. Gauntlett, D. (2011). Making is connecting. Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar

15. Hazell, S. (2013). 200 Crochet Stitches. Search Press.Search in Google Scholar

16. Highwood, E.J., & Williams, S.A. (2018, July 13). Crocheting together – an example of social learning. elliehighwood [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://elliehighwood.com/2018/07/13/crocheting-together-an-example-of-social-learning/Search in Google Scholar

17. Jordan, K. (2015). MOOC Research Literature Browser. Retrieved from http://www.katyjordan.com/moocliterature/Search in Google Scholar

18. Kucirkova, N., & Littleton, K. (2015). Digital learning hubs: theoretical and practical ideas for innovating massive open online courses. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-7. doi:10.1080/17439884.2015.105483510.1080/17439884.2015.1054835Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

19. Le Deuff, O. (2010). Réseaux de loisirs créatifs et nouveaux modes d’apprentissage. Distances et savoirs, 8(4), 601-621.10.3166/ds.8.601-621Search in Google Scholar

20. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227.10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455Search in Google Scholar

21. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557-569.10.1111/bjet.12261Search in Google Scholar

22. Mayne, A. (2016). Feeling lonely, feeling connected: Amateur knit and crochet makers online. Craft Research, 7(1), 11-29.10.1386/crre.7.1.11_1Search in Google Scholar

23. Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.10.7551/mitpress/7105.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

24. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Rodriguez.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

25. Scanlon, E., McAndrew, P., & O’Shea, T. (2015). Designing for Educational Technology to Enhance the Experience of Learners in Distance Education: How Open Educational Resources, Learning Design and MOOCs Are Influencing Learning. Journal of interactive Media in education, 2015(1). doi:10.5334/jime.al10.5334/jime.alOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

26. Scheepjes. (n.d.). Scheepjes CAL2016 – Last Dance on the Beach. Retrieved from http://www.scheepjes.com/en/cals/scheepjes-cals/scheepjes-cal-2016/information/Search in Google Scholar

27. Shah, D. (2018, January 18). By The Numbers: MOOCS in 2017. Class Central [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017/Search in Google Scholar

28. Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the Digital University: a review of the history and current state of distance, blended, and online learning. Retrieved from http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

29. Stalp, M. C., & Winge, T. M. (2008). My collection is bigger than yours: tales from the handcrafter’s stash. Home Cultures, 5(2), 197-218.10.2752/174063108X333182Search in Google Scholar

30. Stylecraft. (n.d.). Carousel. Retrieved from http://www.stylecraft-yarns.co.uk/Carousel/0_CAFA122_CAFA150_CAFA151.htmSearch in Google Scholar

31. UNESCO. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011.Search in Google Scholar

32. Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3.Search in Google Scholar

33. Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803932Search in Google Scholar

34. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.10.1177/135050840072002Search in Google Scholar

35. Wenger, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice. Retrieved from https://guard.canberra.edu.au/opus/copyright_register/repository/53/153/01_03_CP_technology_survey_v3.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

36. Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In C. Blackmore(Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 179-198). Springer.10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_11Search in Google Scholar

37. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare.Search in Google Scholar

38. Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2015). Communities of practice a brief introduction. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/Search in Google Scholar

39. White, G. (2015, January 25). The Barkham Hookers 2015 CAL...Introduction and General Info. Confessions of a Barkham Hooker [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://gaynorwhite.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-barkham-hoookers-2015-cal.htmlSearch in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo